In re Parentage of B.S., 2024 IL App (5th) 220681-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of B.S., 2024 IL App (5th) 220681‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Jan. 22, 2024).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Melissa Schmitt (mother). Respondent‑Appellee: Christopher Heeb (father). Intervening Petitioner‑Appellee: Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS). Attorney disqualified: Christine Kovach.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in disqualifying petitioner’s counsel for conflict of interest (Rule 306 interlocutory appeal by permission).
- Whether the trial court erred in quashing a witness subpoena issued to a DHFS employee.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on disqualification.

3) Holding / outcome
- Judgment affirmed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order disqualifying Kovach.
- The appeal as to the subpoena was not reviewable on the merits because the subpoenaed witness (Marilyn “Lyn” Kuttin) died, rendering that issue moot.
- The court denied petitioner’s motion to strike portions of appellees’ briefs.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Appeal was taken under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(7) (interlocutory permission to appeal an order disqualifying counsel). Orders not enumerated in Rule 306 (e.g., subpoena quash) generally fall outside the interlocutory appeal; they may be reviewed only if sufficiently related to the Rule 306 order. Here the subpoena issue became moot because the targeted witness died; mootness prevents appellate relief.
- Forfeiture under Rule 341(h)(7): the petitioner elected to have her Rule 306 petition stand as her brief but provided no legal argument or authority on why disqualification or denial of an evidentiary hearing was erroneous. The court held those issues forfeited because points must be argued in the initial brief (reply briefing cannot cure the omission).
- Basis of disqualification (record facts): Kovach previously worked for the Madison County State’s Attorney’s Office and had represented DHFS in this matter (2008–2010); DHFS did not provide informed consent to her later private representation of the petitioner.

5) Practice implications
- If seeking interlocutory review of counsel disqualification, comply strictly with Rule 306 procedural requirements and prepare a Rule 341‑compliant brief with developed argument, authorities, and record cites—failure to do so forfeits appellate review.
- Counsel transitioning from government employment must clear potential conflicts: obtain informed, documented consent when prior governmental representation overlaps with contemplated private representation to avoid disqualification.
- When issuing subpoenas to government agencies, specify alternatives or organizational custodians if testimony is institutional; targeting a single individual risks mootness if that person becomes unavailable.
- Preserve requests for evidentiary hearings in the trial court with clear record entries; appellate review may be lost if not briefed properly.